From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nieves v. Holmes Protection, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 15, 1982
438 N.E.2d 1145 (N.Y. 1982)

Opinion

Decided June 15, 1982

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, DOROTHY E. KENT, J.

Edwin Kaufman for appellant.

Stephen A. Weingrad for respondent.


On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs. We agree that plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between C.G.M. Check Cashing Corporation and Holmes Protection, Inc., for provision of a burglar alarm system. Nor can it be said as a matter of law that negligence, if any, on defendant's part was the proximate cause of the injuries suffered.

Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER.


Summaries of

Nieves v. Holmes Protection, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 15, 1982
438 N.E.2d 1145 (N.Y. 1982)
Case details for

Nieves v. Holmes Protection, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:RONALD NIEVES, Appellant, v. HOLMES PROTECTION, INC., Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 15, 1982

Citations

438 N.E.2d 1145 (N.Y. 1982)
438 N.E.2d 1145
453 N.Y.S.2d 430

Citing Cases

World Trade v. Lido Knitting

While it is not necessary that a third-party beneficiary be identified or even identifiable at the time that…

Johnson v. Robert Bruce McLane Associates

of the parties' contract indicate that the parties thereto did not intend to confer a direct benefit upon…